Authority of Scripture

[a-seeker]

 

In this OP I wish to challenge an assumption. In several threads I contended that much of the early chapters in Genesis were of mythic material and not to be taken as strict history—whether or not there was a massive flood in the remote past, a Christian is not obliged to assume that it was global, nor that a single vessel once carried two of every species (excluding fish) for nearly (or just over) a year. To this contention I (and others) were met with the accusation that I have subjected Scripture to my own authority; the implication being that one can (and should) be wholly submitted to Scripture. I have thought long about the accusation and have come to two conclusions: yes, I do; and so do you. I will take another controversial topic to make my point.

Well I must stop you for a moment. You have an assumption here that isn't quite correct. Noah took two of every "kind" not species. (Kind being fairly close to Genus or Family.) Also, it involves a logical direction of thought. If the mountains of the earth (high hills) were covered by water, then this eliminates the idea of a local flood.

In Genesis 1 beasts are clearly created before man and woman on the sixth day. But when we turn to chapter 2 it appears they (as well as birds) are created after man but before woman: that is, the Hebrew and the logical sequence of the narrative all suggest this—so much so that if all we had were chapter two, there would be no question as to the order in which beast, bird, and mankind were created. Now, if one held Scripture as the sole authority for one’s beliefs, he would conclude that both were true. I do not mean he would dismiss the two as contradictory accounts—I mean he would maintain that contradictions were completely reconcilable with his conviction that Scripture were inspired.

This is another mistake in what you've been told. It's ok, it's very common. Genesis 1 is a general overview of creation, while Genesis 2 is focused on the creation of man and the Garden of Eden. It isn't another account, but a more detailed account.

If such a person actually I exists, I have never met him; for one of the few philosophical maxims that remains today is the principle of non-contradiction—if the Bible is truly inerrant, then it must be free of contradiction: hence the several maneuvers made by pious Christians to reconcile the apparent discrepancy. Some conclude that, despite the Hebrew and the narrative sequence, the beasts and birds mentioned in chapter 2 are referring to creatures already made. Others, like myself, maintain that the two accounts are chiefly thematic, rather than historically chronological (obviously there is chronology involved: wherever there is a narrative there must be sequence. But the point of Genesis 1 and two is not to give an historical account of creation). Whichever is right (if either) is not the point of this OP. The point is that both readers feel the need to reconcile the two chapters of Genesis with the principle of non-contradiction; but whence does this principle derive? It cannot derive from Scripture. Even if we found a Hebrew or Greek (or Aramaic) word corresponding to the English “contradiction” within a proposition condemning the concept, still this would merely be one more proposition at odds with certain other propositions. The fact is that the principle is derived not from Scripture but from Reason. The shortest reflection on this discovery will show that very few Bible readers truly embrace Scripture as their sole or even highest authority. Wherever there is a discrepancy in Scripture, it is reason which has exposed it; and wherever there is felt the need to resolve it, it is reason which issues this demand. Wherever a solution is offered, it is reason which has discovered it. Both the threatened principle, the need for a solution to the threat, and the solution itself all find their source in Reason, not Scripture. But this is just another way of saying that Scripture is obligated to something other than reason. If Scripture is truly inspired, it must meet certain criteria; criteria imposed upon it from without.

The practical result of this thesis is small but important. The answer to such rhetorical outbursts as, “Who are you to determine which parts of Scripture are literal and which are not;” or “Who are you to question Scripture?!” is, “I am a thinking person, endowed by God with Reason.” But it would be better to drop these accusations altogether: for, as the old saying goes, wherever a finger is pointed at someone else, three are pointed at one’s self. We are all demanding of Scripture certain characteristics to meet our own definition of “inspired”. I do not require of it inerrancy; some do. But the principle of non-contradiction is, to some degree, always operating.

clb

A lot of what I've read in this section seems to derive from a few misconceptions you have about scripture, rather than actual problems with scripture. I'd be happy to help you get through a few other misconceptions or confusing points with you if you like, and help you understand them.

 

 

Sure, I am open to correction.  But I would not say I have misconceptions of Scripture.  I might about inerrancy.  I simply do not believe the Bible is without errors.  The cosmology held by the author of Genesis is simply wrong.  And it makes no difference to the value of Scripture.  Scripture is a narrative ultimately about Jesus, not cosmology.

 

Your distinction between "kind" and "species" sounds a bit too modern.  Is there any evidence that the ancients made the same distinction?  And what do you mean by the distinction?  Is "bird" a "kind", so that really all Noah took was two birds and two mammals and two creepers?  Obviously the Bible makes a distinction between ravens and doves.  It seems a literalistic reading of Noah requires two of every animal that we give a different name to, from Giraffes to penguins.

 

And a lot of this discussion goes back a long way.

 

As far as the flood narrative, I agree absolutely that the story entails a global flood.  A global flood that assumes erroneous views about the world.  It is the product of myth.  Perhaps there was a flood large enough that oral tradition from several groups preserved it in their own way (Gilgamesh, Noah).  But they were not modern historians.  They told stories.  Stories get embellished.  The Noah narrative is embellished for theological purposes, to make statements about God and man.

 

 

clb

Edited August 18, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Hobbes]

I certainly agree that most are ridiculous and blown out of proportion.  But there are “contradictions”; and some of the proposed solutions are so implausible only conviction in inerrancy would compel me to embrace them. Let’s look at a concrete example.  Most Christians will eventually meet the differing genealogies given for Jesus in Luke and Matthew.  When I was young I heard a lecturer explain that one genealogy was traced through Jesus’ mother, and the other through Jesus’ “father”, Joseph.

 

Excited, I picked up my Bible and studied the two passages….unfortunately I found no evidence in either gospel that Jesus’ ancestry was traced through anyone other than Joseph.   If the world had only one or the other gospel, it would never once question which parent our Lord’s genealogy was traced to.  So why the proposal? Because whoever made it needed the Bible to be free of errors.  Put another way, I have two options: either rely upon my reason which tells me that Matthew and Luke present incompatible genealogies, or embrace a theory despite all the exegetical evidence to the contrary?  If my faith were tied up with the conviction that unless the Bible is inerrant to the last iota, Jesus was not raised, I suppose my faith would crumble or my reasoning would take a back seat.  Since my faith is not tied up with inerrancy, I am free to say that the two genealogies are completely incompatible.

 

Well, interesting enough, you are taking the correct course in your walk with Him regarding the two genealogies.

 

1 Timothy 1:1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; ² Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. ³ As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, ⁴ Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. ⁵ Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

 

Titus 3:⁹ But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. ¹⁰ A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

 

So don't worry about it but at the same time, don't refer to that as a cause for not believing in the scripture.  You have faith in Jesus Christ and that is good, but may you bellieve someday that Jesus had validated the scripture.  We can trust Jesus as our Good Shepherd to guide us by the scripture that has been kept by those that loved Him & His words in the KJV;  and Jesus will show that to you too.

[a-seeker]

I couldn't agree with you more Shiloh.  Either one believes the record we have been given or they don't.  You can't believe in the God of the Bible and then turn around and fight against the God of the Bible for that is the true character of the atheists.

 

 

 

 

That is an empirical claim.  For it to be true then I would have to be lying when I said the Bible contains errors but Jesus is the risen Lord.  I am not lying.  I believe both.  Empirically you are wrong.

 

Atheists do not believe in God yet oppose the Bible.  They simply do not believe in God.

[a-seeker]

 

I certainly agree that most are ridiculous and blown out of proportion.  But there are “contradictions”; and some of the proposed solutions are so implausible only conviction in inerrancy would compel me to embrace them. Let’s look at a concrete example.  Most Christians will eventually meet the differing genealogies given for Jesus in Luke and Matthew.  When I was young I heard a lecturer explain that one genealogy was traced through Jesus’ mother, and the other through Jesus’ “father”, Joseph.

 

Excited, I picked up my Bible and studied the two passages….unfortunately I found no evidence in either gospel that Jesus’ ancestry was traced through anyone other than Joseph.   If the world had only one or the other gospel, it would never once question which parent our Lord’s genealogy was traced to.  So why the proposal? Because whoever made it needed the Bible to be free of errors.  Put another way, I have two options: either rely upon my reason which tells me that Matthew and Luke present incompatible genealogies, or embrace a theory despite all the exegetical evidence to the contrary?  If my faith were tied up with the conviction that unless the Bible is inerrant to the last iota, Jesus was not raised, I suppose my faith would crumble or my reasoning would take a back seat.  Since my faith is not tied up with inerrancy, I am free to say that the two genealogies are completely incompatible.

 

Well, interesting enough, you are taking the correct course in your walk with Him regarding the two genealogies.

 

1 Timothy 1:1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; ² Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. ³ As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, ⁴ Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. ⁵ Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

 

Titus 3:⁹ But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. ¹⁰ A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

 

So don't worry about it but at the same time, don't refer to that as a cause for not believing in the scripture.  You have faith in Jesus Christ and that is good, but may you bellieve someday that Jesus had validated the scripture.  We can trust Jesus as our Good Shepherd to guide us by the scripture that has been kept by those that loved Him & His words in the KJV;  and Jesus will show that to you too.

 

 

 

Hobbes,

 

I should state (though my posts might suggest otherwise) that I am a firm believer in Christ.  The disparate genealogies in no way rattles my faith.  Jesus validated Scripture; but never once does he give commentary on the YEC or OEC debate.  He says that man and woman are to be one. I give my consent.  Reading Genesis the way I do in no way invalidates that command. I simply do not think inerrancy was very important to Jesus, as if He would be upset if a spelling error occurred in the original texts, or a geographical error, or that our system were not geocentric but the canonical authors thought it was.

 

clb

[Hobbes]

Hello Hobbes,

 

I appreciate that you call me Brother Connor (even if you put an e in there )  I hope that you can continue to consider me a brother even after I insert a correction here.

 

I do not see Genesis 2 as a flash back to day 6.  I must make a distinction about chronological inconsistencies here.  a thing can be chronologically inconsistent in the sense that it does not flow forward without interruptions, i.e. flashbacks, 3 steps forward, 2 steps back.  That is how you and most on this forum view the two accounts. But a thing can be chronologically inconsistent because the same events are placed in relation to each other differently between two accounts.  In Genesis 1 the animals come before Adam and Eve; in Genesis 2 they come between the two.  Read literalistically, there is no way to reconcile the two: this is not just a matter of flash back.  Genesis two is not a focus on day 6.

 

Having said this, I do not think the inconsistency significant.  Both report creation, but in different ways with different themes and different points to be made.

 

clb 

 

 Hi Brother Connor, still...

 

What if you read a flashback from the beginning to set the example for Genesis 2 account?

 

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

Another inconsistency?  Because the celestial bodies in the heavens and the lights coming from them were not created until the third day.  So... a flashback from the very beginning.

 

Now you can cry foul to the flow of things but Moses in his writings did end one topic regarding the seventh day and began another which was addressing the coming generations of man.  So he set the stage again as referring to the sixth day on how God watered the earth by a mist because no man was there yet to till the ground.  Hence the flashback before man was created in addressing the coming generations of man by starting at the beginning and in more detail of the creation of man.

 

Now you brought up the animals. 

 

Genesis 2:¹⁸ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. ¹⁹ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. ²⁰ And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

 

I find the use of the term formed significant as deferring from created.  I also find that He did not formed two of them as in male & female, but out of every beast & fowl in the singular sense.   So I see that as making a copy of each beast of the field and each fowl of the air in bringing that copy of them from the beast in the field and the fowls in the air for Adam to name in trying to find a singular helpmeet.  So that cannot be the time when God was creating male and female of each kind on the fifth day as they would be spread out all over creation, and because they are spread out all over creation, God was forming each kind in front of Adam to signify Himself as the Creator of all things, and more importantly, Adam's up and coming helpmeet which Jesus referred to as scriptural truth. 

 

Mark 10:⁵ And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. ⁶ But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. ⁷ For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; ⁸ And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. ⁹ What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

Jesus validated the two accounts of Genesis;  how God made them male and female, and the indepths account on how in the beginning, they were one flesh as Eve came out of Adam; and not the ground.

[Hobbes]

 

 

Hobbes,

 

I should state (though my posts might suggest otherwise) that I am a firm believer in Christ.  The disparate genealogies in no way rattles my faith.  Jesus validated Scripture; but never once does he give commentary on the YEC or OEC debate.  He says that man and woman are to be one. I give my consent.  Reading Genesis the way I do in no way invalidates that command. I simply do not think inerrancy was very important to Jesus, as if He would be upset if a spelling error occurred in the original texts, or a geographical error, or that our system were not geocentric but the canonical authors thought it was.

 

clb

 

 

Hey Brother Connor,

 

I am glad to see that Jesus is keeping you as a firm believer in Jesus Christ.

 

As for the claim of Jesus not giving a commentary for YEC or OEC, He did testify to the purpose of the seventh day of rest for why it was created, and how He was circumventing the commandment of keeping the sabbath day because He is Lord of the Sabbath.

 

Is that the truth or vain glory on His part if there was no actual six days of creation?  There has to be a literal for the symbolic to occur because Paul in Hebrews was referring that seventh day of rest to His finished work on the cross.

 

Hebrews 4:1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. ² For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. ³ For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. ⁴ For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. ⁵ And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. ⁶ Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: ⁷ Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. ⁸ For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. ⁹ There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. ¹⁰ For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. ¹¹ Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

 

You should find it telltaling that in almost all cultures, there is a seven day week.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Hobbes

[Hobbes]

Brother Conner,

 

Do keep in mind regarding Noah's flood that it has been referenced by Jesus and even Peter as a legitimate warning for believers to beware of in being ready and abiding in Him as His disciples.

 

Luke 12:⁴⁰ Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not. ⁴¹ Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? ⁴² And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? ⁴³ Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. ⁴⁴ Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

⁴⁵ But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; ⁴⁶ The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. ⁴⁷ And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. ⁴⁸ But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. ⁴⁹ I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

 

Luke 17:²⁶ And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. ²⁷ They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. ²⁸ Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; ²⁹ But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. ³⁰ Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

 

2 Peter 3:1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: ² That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: ³ Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, ⁴ And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. ⁵ For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: ⁶ Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: ⁷ But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. ⁸ But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ⁹ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. ¹⁰ But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. ¹¹ Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, ¹² Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? ¹³ Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. ¹⁴ Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

 

Did you know that there is an ancient Chinese pictographs for boat made up of three smaller pictographs of three mouths vessel ? 

 

And there are mass graves of fossilized whale bones with other fossilized marine life found with fossilized animal life on top of mountains in South and Latin America, Northwestern Africa, Turkey & China?  Course, the media presents the finding in an evolutionary format, but thanks to Jesus Christ, they can't hide the truth from me as solid evidence of a global flood.  I hope He will show you too.

 

 

[a-seeker]

 

Hello Hobbes,

 

I appreciate that you call me Brother Connor (even if you put an e in there )  I hope that you can continue to consider me a brother even after I insert a correction here.

 

I do not see Genesis 2 as a flash back to day 6.  I must make a distinction about chronological inconsistencies here.  a thing can be chronologically inconsistent in the sense that it does not flow forward without interruptions, i.e. flashbacks, 3 steps forward, 2 steps back.  That is how you and most on this forum view the two accounts. But a thing can be chronologically inconsistent because the same events are placed in relation to each other differently between two accounts.  In Genesis 1 the animals come before Adam and Eve; in Genesis 2 they come between the two.  Read literalistically, there is no way to reconcile the two: this is not just a matter of flash back.  Genesis two is not a focus on day 6.

 

Having said this, I do not think the inconsistency significant.  Both report creation, but in different ways with different themes and different points to be made.

 

clb 

 

 Hi Brother Connor, still...

 

What if you read a flashback from the beginning to set the example for Genesis 2 account?

 

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

Another inconsistency?  Because the celestial bodies in the heavens and the lights coming from them were not created until the third day.  So... a flashback from the very beginning.

 

Now you can cry foul to the flow of things but Moses in his writings did end one topic regarding the seventh day and began another which was addressing the coming generations of man.  So he set the stage again as referring to the sixth day on how God watered the earth by a mist because no man was there yet to till the ground.  Hence the flashback before man was created in addressing the coming generations of man by starting at the beginning and in more detail of the creation of man.

 

Now you brought up the animals. 

 

Genesis 2:¹⁸ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. ¹⁹ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. ²⁰ And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

 

I find the use of the term formed significant as deferring from created.  I also find that He did not formed two of them as in male & female, but out of every beast & fowl in the singular sense.   So I see that as making a copy of each beast of the field and each fowl of the air in bringing that copy of them from the beast in the field and the fowls in the air for Adam to name in trying to find a singular helpmeet.  So that cannot be the time when God was creating male and female of each kind on the fifth day as they would be spread out all over creation, and because they are spread out all over creation, God was forming each kind in front of Adam to signify Himself as the Creator of all things, and more importantly, Adam's up and coming helpmeet which Jesus referred to as scriptural truth. 

 

Mark 10:⁵ And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. ⁶ But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. ⁷ For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; ⁸ And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. ⁹ What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

Jesus validated the two accounts of Genesis;  how God made them male and female, and the indepths account on how in the beginning, they were one flesh as Eve came out of Adam; and not the ground.

 

 

I appreciate your recognition of me as a brother

 

however, so far the attempts (including your own, sorry) to put the two accounts into sequential congruity seem implausible.  No, day 3 is not a flash back to day 1.  The narrative is framed thematically, chronologically.  It is structured on a 7 day pattern because 7 is a number signifying completion, as well as the number of days dedicated to festivals celebrating the inauguration of a temple, both pagan and monotheistic; the days 1-3 correspond to the days 4-6 as habitable regions correspond to inhabitants: a major theme of Genesis (at the start of Genesis there are two problems, the earth was uninhabitable and uninhabited; Abraham's main problem was he was without land, i.e. habitable area, and without seed, i.e. habitation).  Thus day 1 creates light, governed by the sun and moon in day 4; day 2 creates sky and sea, governed by bird and fish; day 3 creates land, governed by beast and man.  The theme is Kingdoms and Kings, with man the chief King of them all (under, of course, God).

 

Genesis makes no comment on either YEC or OEC.

 

Thus I have no need to reconcile the two accounts.  My faith in Jesus does not depend upon it.  Genesis maintains its own consistency.  for from my point of view there are two alternatives regarding the chronology:  either the author did not intend them to be sequentially congruent, or he was an idiot.  There are too many subtitles and literary maneuvers to embrace the second, so I embrace the first. 

 

clb

 

Oh, as to this 

 

 

 

Did you know that there is an ancient Chinese pictographs for boat made up of three smaller pictographs of three mouths vessel ? 

 

 

And there are mass graves of fossilized whale bones with other fossilized marine life found with fossilized animal life on top of mountains in South and Latin America, Northwestern Africa, Turkey & China?  Course, the media presents the finding in an evolutionary format, but thanks to Jesus Christ, they can't hide the truth from me as solid evidence of a global flood.  I hope He will show you too.

 

 

 

 

Why?  My faith doesn't depend on it.  I am already saved and belief in a global flood will not save me any more.

 

And to this (sorry, I keep finding things that I missed)

 

Do keep in mind regarding Noah's flood that it has been referenced by Jesus and even Peter as a legitimate warning for believers to beware of in being ready and abiding in Him as His disciples.

 

 

That's fine.  Keep in mind that the lesson of the tortoise and the hair (HARE, ha) remains powerful even if a tortoise and a hare never really had a race.

Edited August 18, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Hobbes]

Brother Connor,

 

As for your disagreement over the scripture in still seeing comtradictions or inconsistencies, I have to point out that if your faith does not matter one way or another, then why the thread?

 

If contentions have arisen because of how you disregard scripture, then maybe you should discern yourself why you are even making a point of it or making those contentions or "disbelief" known?  See my point?

 

I have known believers turned away from the Bible, church, and Jesus because of the evolution theory, and so I have to wonder if you are even aware of how you are coming across to believers weak in faith?  Are you not concern about causing a brother to stumble?

 

It is all right to have questions, but if it doesn't matter either way then why the point of this thread?  Why make contentions known?

 

You have faith in Jesus.  Fine.  Do you have faith in His words to be kept by those that loved Him & His words to get them to those who wish to follow Him as His disciples?

 

John 14:²³ Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. ²⁴ He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

 

John 15:²⁰ Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

 

John 15:1I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. ² Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. ³ Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. ⁴ Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. ⁵ I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. ⁶ If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. ⁷ If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. ⁸ Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. ⁹ As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

 

Scripture has been backed by Jesus.  His own words testify that those that loved Him will love His words.  There are consequences for not abiding in Him & His words.  So where is your love?  Just because you are not able to receive the truth in His words as He has helped me to see, it does not mean you never will.  So ask Him.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Hobbes

[Openly Curious]

 

 

I would expect that kind of comment to come from Richard Dawkins.  It is disturbing when people who allege that they are Christians start sounding like atheists.  

Inerrancy is a doctrine, an essential doctrine of the Christian faith, not a placebo.   No you are not seeking truth.  You are challenging the integrity of God's word and by extension you are challenging God's integrity.   Your posts demonstrate direct enmity with the truth.

by whose definition is inerrancy essential doctrine? That is your opinion not fact. Several denominations have doctrine saying the bible is the inspired word of God. Inspired and inerrant are not the same thing

 

 

And so it seems that a fellow helper chord has been struck.